liiiljiii 











..0' 






:r„ 










*-./ 







«>"•• "^. 









^^ THE NEW FUGITIVE SLAYE LAW. 



SPEECH 



EDWIN C. LAPtNED, ESQ 



AT THE CITY HALL IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 



ON THE EVENING OF OCT. 2.5i!ji, 1 S50. 



IN REPLY TO 



ON. S. A. DOUGLAS, 



CHICAGO : 

'PRINTED AT THE DEMOCRAT OFFICE, 45 LA SALLE STREET. 

Steain Presses. 

1850, 



£^^f 



Chicago, Xov. 2S, 1850. 



•»D*f 



Edwin C. Larsed, Esq.— 

Sir: The undersigned, for ihemselves and a large number of otiier persons who have expressed a like desire, 
respectfully request thai you would oblige us by writing out for publication in a pamphlet form the substance of your 
speech delivered on the 25th inst. in answer to Senator Douglas. We are, Sir, very respectfully, 

Your ob't serv'ts, 
James H. Collins, Charles V. Dyer, Sylvester Ularsh, Thomas Richmond, 

E.S.Williams, Orrnigton Lunt, Henry W. Clarke, I.N.Arnold, 

Samuel C. Clarke, Carlos Haven, Wm. Jones, J. S. King, Jr. 

George A. Ingalls, George Manierre, A. G. Throop, Paul Cornell. 



CuicAoo, Oct. 29, 1850. 

Alessrs. Charles V. Dyer, Thomas Richmond, Orringtox Lunt, I. N. Arnold, J. U. Collins, Sylvester 
Marsh, and others — 

Gentlemen: Vour favor of the 2Sth inst., requesting, in behalf of yourselves and a large number of otlier persons, who 
have expressed a like desire, that I should WTite out for publication in a pamphlet form, the speech deUvered by me on 
the evening of the 25tli inst., in answer to Senator Douglas, has been received. 

In reply, I would state that I have already, at the request of the Editors of several of the leading papers, written out 
the speech for publication, and it is entirely at your disposal to make such use of it as you think proper. In WTiting it 
out I have not felt at liberty to make any improvements, and must therefore, solicit indulgence for tliose errors of tau- 
tology and repetition, to wliich extemporaneous speaking is always liable, and especially in unpractised speakers. 

I would beg leave to suggest that the proposed pamphlet should contain all the speeches which were delivered on the 
same occasion, together with tlie pointed, terse and admirably drawn resolutions reported by the Committee, and 
adopted by the meeting. 

The influence of the extensive circulation of such a pamphlet would, 1 feel confident, have a beneficial effect in in- 
ducing in the minds of our fellow citizens a more thoughtful consideration of the true character of the new Fugitive 
Slave Bill, and if anything which 1 may have said upon the subject shall be instrumental in furthering the repeal of 
tint infamous law, I shall feel most happy. 

In conclusion, I would express my grateful acknowledgment of tlie personal compliment implied to your request, and 
remain, with great respect. Very truly yours, 

EDWIN' C. LARNED. 



<s^ 



SPEECH. 



Fellow Citizens ; I ri?e for the first time in 
my life to address a j)ub!ic political meetinjr ; | 
and I do so under a solemn and imperative sense j 
oi'duty. 1 am no politician — I am no abolition- 
ist ; 1 have taken no active part in any political i 
controversy, and i have come here now for no 
political or partisan object. It has been declared 
in this hall, but a short time a^o, by one stand- 
ing h gh in the councils of the nation, that it is 
the duty of every citizen who respects the Con- 
stitution of his country, to aid in carrying out 
and enforcng the Fugitive Slave bill, recently 
pasfed by the Cougreas of the United States — a 
law which (the opinion of that Senator to the ! 
contrary notwithstanding) I do not hesitate to j 
declare is the most infamous law which was 
ever passed by the representatives of a free peo- 
ple. I cannot give ray aid and sanction to that 
law, and 1 stand here, as an American citizen, 
speaking to an assembly of his fellow citizens, to 
give the reasons why 1 condemn tliat law, and 
shall refuse to give any aid in its enforcement. 

I come here as no friend of force or violence. 
I am no disorganizer, no advocate of mob law. 
I respect and reverence the Constitution of my 
country, which our fathers established, and un 
der which we live; and that Constitution, so 
long as 1 live under it, shall receive from me an 
unhesitating obedience. — Show me that any law 
passed by the Congress of the United States is 
in conformity with and sustained by the au- 
thority of that Constitution, and I shall feel it my 
dutv to yield it a loyal obedience. 

Gentlemen, I was present the other evening 
when Air. Douglas addressed you in support and 
vindication of this law. 1 stood for three hours 
and and a half, and listened with careful atten- 
tion to every argument by him adduced in its 
favor. 1 went home and made an abstract of 
these arguments, which 1 have here before me; 
and 1 nov/ proiiose to examine and to answer 
them, or the major part of them, and t'sose which 
I shall omit to consider, I have no doubt will be 
taken care of by other gentlemen who will ad- 
dress you. 

Shall it be esteemed presumptuous in a j-oung 
man to undertake to refute the argumv.nits of 
one so eminent in position, and so distinguished 
in ability ? If there were any presumption in the 
case, 1 know there is no man who would be less 
likely to regard it in such a light than the Sena- 
tor himself — for I know of no man mere fearless 
and independent — no man who has less respect 
for persons or stations in vindicating what he be- 
lieves to be thj truth and the right. 

Bat, gentlemen, in this instance the presump- 
tion, if any, would be in my undertaking to take 
the same ground, and maintain the sani'^ posi- 



tions with the honorable Senator ; for I veniurf 
to aflirm that no man, excepting one posses.'in:: 
the same transcendent ability, the same masteily 
skill and acuteness in debate, could ever have 
appeared before an audience of northern free- 
men, with herrts glowing with the love of lib- 
erty, and succeeded in gaining their favor and 
approval while vindicating a law like this. 

Now, fellow citizens, what was the great 
strength of the argumeiit of the Senator, what 
was the point upon which he was enabled to 
move you and carry you away captive at his 
will ? [t was this. That ycu were bound as 
citizens to respect and jeverence the Constitu- 
tion of your country. That n.any of you had 
taken solemn oaths to support tliai Constitution 
— and that all owed to it an unwavering loyalty. 
And then, by a course of reasoning the most 
ingenious and plausible, he sought and to some 
extent succeeded in identifying in your minds 
the law iu question with the Constitution itself. 
And so strong is the feeling oi loyalty to law in 
the Northern heart, that once convince a citizen 
that a law is in conformity with the constitution, 
and, however inexpedient and impolitic he may 
deem it, he gives it unhesitating obedience; and 
althougii among our Southern brethren the Con- 
stitution is trampled under foot and the laws are 
openly set at defiance — although the privilege of 
free speech and a free press are overthrown — 
although free citizens having al! the rights of 
freemen are openly seized and imprisoned and 
sold into slavery in Southern ports for no other 
ofTence than having been created by their Maker 
with a colored skin — although respected and 
eminent citizens possessed of talents, and public 
virtues, and exalted worth, sent from the free 
States to the South, peaceably and in a friendly 
manner, for the purpose of testing great constitu- 
tional questions, have been ignominiously driven 
away and compelled to seek safety in flight ; yet 
gentlemen, I thank God that we have not yet 
imitated their bad e.xample, and God forbid that 
aught which 1 shall say this night sha'l tend in 
one jet or tittle to weaken that reverence for the 
constitution— that spirit of loyalty to the law which 
1 regard as the only safe foundation and the only 
sure safe-guard of cur free institutions.* 

Now, then, I have said that the strength of 
the Senatjr's position consisted in his producing 
iu your minds the conviction that the Fugitive 
Slave bill, and the provision in the constitution 
which it attempts to enforce, are one and the 
same thing, the one being but a carrying out of 
the other. 

It does not follow because a law is pissed for- 



* See Appendix note (I) 



ihc purpose of carrying out a constitutional pro- 
rision that therefore the law is conslitutioiial. 
Such a provision may be soujrht to be carried 
cut in an luiconstilntional manner, and if so, 
liien although intended to carry out a proviso of 
the coiislitution, such law would be uncoustitu- 
tioual. To illustrate : Suppose, for the purpose 
of carrying out the clause ol the couslilulion res- 
peclinjj fugi'ive slaves, Congress should pass a 
law that whenever a slave escapes into a free 
Slate his master should have the light, without 
warrant or legal process, to enter the house of 
any citizen without and against his consent, and 
search it from garret to cellar for the purpose of 
recapturing such slave. Would such a law be 
constitutional ? Suppose that it should be con- 
tended that such a provision was constitutional 
because it was ntccssary to give the slaveholder 
the benefit of that pr.)viso in tlie constitution, 
und that without sucii a 1 w his remedy would 
not be complete under that proviso. Would that 
make such a law c. institutional — would you 
submit to it ? VA'ould you allow the southern 
slaveholder to invadt; thp sanctity of your iiomes 
for such a purjjose ? No, not one of you — and 
why? Becau.-e such a law would be in defiance 
of the right of the ••ii.z-ns "to be secure in their 
homes against unreasonable searches and seiz- 
ures," guaranteed to tiieni by the constilutioa 
ilseit". 

It seems then that it does not follow that l,e- 
cause there is a provision in the constitution 
respecting fugitive slaves, and that this law is 
intended to carry out that provision, that there- 
fore thi- law is constitutional. 

Let us rid this matter of false issues. 1 rev- 
erence the constitution as much as the Senator; 
i submit to nlL its provisions. ] respect the com- 
pact vrhich our fathers made. I admit that that 
compact was founded in compromises and con- 
cessions. 1 acknowledge the binding force of 
those compromises, and I am ready to carry 
them out in the letter and in the spirit. 

When a proper and constitutional law shall be 
passed by OiMigress carryin>j out the provision 
of the constitution respecting fugitives Irom la- 
bor, 1 shall feel it to be mv duly, however much 
1 deplore the e.xistence cf human slavery in our 
midst, to give to such a law my unequivocal 
sanction and suppoit. 

I am not then contending against the consti- 
tution, but against tins lnw, and 1 will undertake 
to prove to you that this law is not only not the 
same thing with the constitution, but that it is 
in gross and flagrant violation of some of the 
most important and vital constitutional principles 
and constitutional rights; and if I do so, then 1 
shall vindicate the right and propriety of liie re- 
solution whicii 1 have announced to you not to 
aid or sanction its enforcement. 

Wow, what is ;he provision iu the constitution 
upon which this law professes to be based ? li 
is this. 

Constitution U. S., art. 4. s?c. 2 H 3. 

♦•r^o person held to service or labor in ono 
"Stale under the laws thereof, escaping into 
"another shall, in consequence of any law or 
"regulation therein, be di.'charged from such 
"service or labor; but shall be delivered up on 
"claim of tlie party to whom such service or la- 
"bor shall be due." 

.\o.v what was the meanins: and intent of this 



clause ? What is the compact which our fathers 
have entered into and by which we are bound ? 
Why, at the time of the formation of this Con- 
stitution, the common law of England prevailed 
all over this country. It was the comnimi law 
of every State which entered into the Union. 
Its modes of procedure, its forms and writs and 
processes, its rules of ina! and of evidence were 
known a;jd established 

Cy the ])rinciples of the common law a slave 
cannot breathe tile air of freedom without be- 
coming a freeman. It was decided in England 
a century ago that .«o .=oon as a slave set his font 
upon the free soil of England he became free. 
^o\v, then, had not tiiis clause been placed in 
the Constitution, what would have been the re- 
sult ? Why, the moment a slave entertd into a 
fiee Stale he would have become a free man. 
But the constitution was a compromise of con- 
flicting interests, and as one of these compromi- 
ses .t was agreed that the right iu sUve property 
should not thus be destroyed. It was permitted 
to the slaveholder to set up in the courts of a 
free State title in human beings — a right which, 
without such express enactment, he never could 
liave had. 

He was permitted to establish on a f.efc soil. 
and amongst free men, the ownership of a hu- 
man being, and upon so doing he was empow- 
ered to take away such human being as his own. 

Thai was the right which tlie constitution se- 
cured to him — that was the compromise into 
which our fathers entered. But does the cousli- 
lulion pro\ide how such right of property in 
man should be proved and established ? Does it 
authorize any new and extraordinary tribunals 
for the purpose ? Does it establish any new laws 
of evidence — any new mode of trial ? JVo. not at 
all. What then is the presumption ? — How are 
we to suppose that il was intended that this right 
of property thus secured should be established ? 
Was it not in the same manner that other rights 
of properly were tried and established? that, is, 
according to the course of the common law? 

Now, what were some of the rules and modes 
of procedure recognized by the common lasi' ? 
Amon2:t!ie chief of ihem vere the Trial by J ury- 
the right of Habeas Corpus — the privilege to the 
accused of being confronted with the witnesses 
whose tesliinony was to alFcct his life, liberty, 
or property, and of subjecting Ihem lo the ordeal 
of cross e.\aminalio.T or imi)eachment. At the 
time of the formation of the constitution, sla- 
very existnd to a greater or less e.xtent in every 
Slate in the Union e.>icei)ting the Slate of Mas- 
sachusetts, and the writ of "de homine replegi- 
ando" was in general use. This writ is one 
which, by a barbarous technical term, desig- 
nates a process, siniilar, in many respects, to 
our common action of replevin, the latter writ 
being confined to the re-caplion of property in 
human chattels and the' former being used in 
suits respecting the right of property in a humen 
being. Now, what sort of proceedings were had 
under this writ ? 'J'lie pre ceeding.s were all ac- 
cording lo the course of the common law The 
trial was by jury. Jl was in open court before 
the regularly constituted tribunals, the evidence 
was ofi'ered as in oti:er ca>es and subject to the 
same rule of cross examination and exclusion. 

Fellow citizens, the clause in Ihe constitution 
respecting fugitives from labor received t.ie 



unanimous vote of the Convention who framed 
it Now, dt you believe — is there a man of you 
who believes that by this clause it was intended 
to do away with all the ))rinciples and modes of 
proceediDg provided for the trial of contested 
questions of property and rig-ht by the common 
law ? Do you believe that w niie our forefathers 
were so jt-aious upon this great r'ght of trial by 
jury that they secured it by an express provision ■ 
in one of the arnendmeuts to the constitution, | 
and established that in suits where l!ie value in 
controversy exceeded twenty dollars, it should 
not be taken away, that they intended to leave 
the precious rioht of human liberty at the mercy 
of Star Chamber courts, of extraordinary and 
irresponsible tribunals — to rest it upon the ex 
])arte affidavits of interested claiinunts ? — Did 
they mean, in behalf of this institution of human 
slavery, repugnant as it vias to all the better 
principles and convictions of the human heart. 
to overthrow all the long established rules of 
procedure — laws of evidence and modes of trial, 
which the wisdom of ages had founded for the 
serurity of the rights of Ireemen ? 

Da you believe that while they would not per- 
mit a cit zen of a Southern Stae to take from a 
citizen ol Itie JNorih a cotton bale, or a hogsliead 
of sugar — or the most tiilling or insignificant 
article of property, vvitliout establishing his rigiit 
of firoperty thereto by legal evidence, and in 
conformity with the rules of the common law — 
th.at they intended to cermit him lo seize human 
beings themselves, living as freemen in a free 
Slate, and without such a trial, to jierniit him to 
carry them away into hopeless bondage ? Do 
you believe that the men of those days, fresh 
from the battle-fields of the Pievolution — fired 
with noble ardor in that sacred cause of human 
liberty for which they had sacrificed their for- 
tunes and shed their blocid — would have entered 
into such a covenant as that ? No, gentlemen ; 
if such a construction had been given to that 
clause in the Constitution at that tune, it never 
could have secured the vote of a corporal's guard 
ia its favor in any of the Northern States. 

The compact which our fathers made, then, 
and lo v.'hich we are held, was this — that they 
w ould pass no law discharging the slave from 
his servitude — that they v.ould recognize, even 
in a free State, the right of prop' r y in human 
beings — and that wiien upon the "'claim" of 
the master, such right had been made out by 
competent evidence in a legal manner and after 
a legal trial, the slave should be delivered up lo 
his master. That was the compact, and by 
it I am ready to stand. Let a law be passed 
wliich secures to the individual against whom 
the cla'm of slavery is set up the benefits of the 
writ of Habeas Corpus and of the trial, hy jury, 
before competent and legal tribunals, in the usu- 
al manner, and it will receive my support, and I 
have no doubt would find very litile opposition 
among moderate and fair men in all parties. 

But, says the Senator, the right of trial by 
jiiry is not taken away by tiiis act. 

Did he mean to avoid the question by falling 
back on the law of 1793, and to argue that this 
law did not take it away because it had been 
previously abolished by that law? 1 will consider 
that objection and that law presently. 

But he gave another reason v;liy the present 
law did not take away the right of trial hy jury— 



and what was that ? — ' because there icas not 
one icord in the law in respect to the right of trial 
hy jury." Not a w'ord said about it — and there- 
to] e it does not take it away ! AVhy, gentlemen, 
that is a most extraordinary argument — why that 
is the very reason why it does take it away — it 
takes it ai\-ay, because it does not give it— be- 
cause it provides another and a different mod-i 
of trial, which trial is to be in a summary man- 
ner — and a summaiy trial is not a jury trial 
"Not one word said in the act about trial by ju- 
ry." No, gentlemen, it is true that there is nut 
one word in the act about i; — not one word — 
wouhi to God there had been ! If i remeinber 
rightly one Daniel Webster, who is not suspec- 
ted of late years of being over zealous in behalf 
of our colored brethern, did, (after r'x-eiving 
some hints from the Old Bay Stale,) introduce 
a bill into the Senate of the United States res- 
pecting fugitive slaves ; and in thai bill the trial 
by jury upon the question of slave or freeman 
was expret-sly secured to the individual against 
whom the claim of slyvery was set up That 
gentleman, was supposed to be somewhat fami- 
liar with the constitution iind constitutional law ; 
but it Seems he was very much mistaken about 
this matter, and that according to the Hon 
Senator's construciion all that is needed to give 
such right of trial by jury was to '■'hacc said not 
one word uhotit it in the act /" 

Jiut the Senator says the right to a trial by ju- 
ry is given, by the Constitution, and cannot bt* 
taken away by implication, and therefore there 
is a trial by jury given under this act. *And 
what do you think this right of trial by jury is ? 
Why, it is the right to try the question of identi- 
ty. A jury may be summoned and sworn to tiy, 
what? Why, whether Tom Jones is Tom Jones. 
(I use the same name by which the Senator saw 
lit to designate the accused.) Invaluable privi- 
lege ! Inestimable right ! What a blessed boon 
to freedoni is this I 

Is that the point which is to be tried ? — is that 
the question of magnitude in this controversy? 
It is not whether Ton! Jones is Tom Jones, but 
v.'hether Tom Jones is a slave — which we care 
about. That is the point, is it not ? \V'e!l, ho»v 
is that to be proved ? any trial by jury to 
prove that ? It is not a question of Tom Jones, 
or Bill Jones — it is a question of freedom or sla- 
very which we wish tried. We claim that a 
man living in a free State, and whom the law 
presumes to be free, shall not be deprived of his 
liberty uutil the fact of his slavery is estab! shed 
bv a jury of his peers, under laws of the land. 
VVeli, how is that main, that vital, that all-im- 
portant point — the point of liberty or slavery of 
the man, sought to be claimed under this law 
as a slave — how is that point to be established ? 
it is, by exparie testimony, made in the absence 
of the accused, without notice to him, when he 
is perhaps thousands of miles away, and in utter 
ignorance of the whole proceedings — entered of 
record in a Southern coirt, in a land of slave- 
holdeis, and when so entered, made conclusivs 
— coNCLUsiVK — of tlie luct of slavery. 

The slaveholder or slavecatcher comes into 
the State of Illinois — he has his record in his 
pocket describing Tom Jones. The process is 
issued. Tom is dragged before AJr. Gommis 



See Appendix, note (.2.) 



6 



sioaer Meeker, or Fome other commissioner — 
the affidavits are prepared : but Tom shall not 
be deprived of the inestimable right of 'rial by 
jury. Oh no ! — that sacred riijiu shall be se- 
cured to him — summon in your jury, then, and 
let them try — what ? Why, whether T<mi Jones 
is Tom Joues. Alas for poor 'J om I 'i iierc is 
no hope for him. fie is the ver}' identical Tom. 
limb for limb, eye for eye, and looth for tooth — 
he is the same, and there is no mistake. He 
can't prove that he is not himself, and so Tonr« 
sentence is pronounced, his doom is fixed, iie is 
handed over to hopeless slavery. 

And that is the trial by jury which the bill 
jrives upon Mr. Senator Douglas' construction. 
Don't you think it's a mo.=t invaluable jirivilege? 

Mr. Hays here rose, and said he would be 
glad to correct a mistake in the speaker's con- 
struction of Mr. Douglas' speech Mr. Lamed 
staled he should be most happy to have him do so. 
Mr. Hays tlien stated that Mr. Lamed was mis 
taken in asserting thai Mr Douglas stated that 
the bill gave any right of trial by jury, for lie 
made no such statement ; but, on the contra.y, 
admitted that the bill gave no such right. 

Mr. Lamed — The gentleman states tliat Mr 
Douglas admits that the bill gives no right of 
trial by jury. ^'ery well. — It seems that I was 
placing the matter in a more favorable light for 
the honorable tSenator than he deserved, in 
supposing that he did, by a kind of forced con- 
struction, claim that some sort of a jury trial was 
given ; but it seems that I have been dealing 
loo fairly by him, and that he does not claim 
any rigl)t of jury tiial to try any point, not even 
the (]ue4ion whether Tom Jones is Tom Jones, 
but considers that the whole matter is to be tried 
by the Conmiissioner.* 

But I already anticipate — in vour thoughts — 
the objection; the law of 1793 did not give a trial 
by jury, and no complaint was made ofthat law, 
1 will take up the law of 1793 presently, and 
show you the wide difference between these two 
laws, ami 1 will show you why that law produc- 
ed no e.\cilement. Now, it is no argumeui in 
favor of a bad law that another bad la A' has been 
passed before it. 1 admit that the law of 1793 
did not give a right of tiial by jury, and it was 
for that very reason that Chancellor V\'alworih, 
in the celebrated case of Jack vs. Martin, argu- 
ed and decided iu the Court of Errors in the 
Slate of New Yoik, questioned the constitution- 
ality of the law of 1793. It is true that the Su- 
preme Court of the United Slates decided in the 
case of Priggs vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylva- 
nia, that tl.e law of 1793 was uuconstiUitional 
upon another ground, viz : for the reason that it 
imposed the duties of the act on State officers, 
and that in general terms, the judges raisod and 
gave their opinions that the law of 1793 was 
constitutional in other respicts, but the express 
point as to the riglil of trial by jury was never 
expressly decided upon by that court. t 

Uut, says Mr. Douglas, there is another act 
providing for the arresi of Fagiticcs from Jus- 
tice, and he read the sections of that act and 
commented upon them \:i full. J would net 
charge him with iulendtd unfairness in this mat- 
ter, but did he — could he have expected to con- 



* See Appendix, note (3.) 
t Sec Appemli.'c, nttc (4.) 



vince an audience of intelligent, sensible men 
that there was any parallel between these two 
laws ? He told you that this law respecting Fu- 
gitives from Justice — had been in force among 
you for fify years and no objection was ever 
made to it — that the proceedings under this law 
were ex parte aiid by affidavit — that ihere was 
the same danger of uerjury and of perversion of 
the process for interested purposes as under the 
Fugitive Slave Law, and yet there was no com- 
plaint or excitement in regard to ihe proceed- 
ings under the l;iw respecting fugitives from jus- 
tice. 

Fellow citizens, I will say nothing about the 
justice aiid humanity of the view which places 
the poor slave by the side of the murderer, the 
robber and the felon — of considering slavery in 
the light of a crime, but let us look at the Fugi- 
tive from Justice act, and see what are the pro- 
ceedings under it and what is its effect. 

A man is charged with a crime, upon affida- 
vit or otherwi-e, committed in another Slate — 
he has fled to this State — he is arrested upon 
I proper and legal process — he appears to be the 
same individual described in the process, and he 
I is adjudged to be delivered up ; but to whom is 
j he to be delivered ? — into the the hands of a 
I hungry creditor — a vindictive foe, or an inter- 
I ested slave owner ? No. into the custody of the 
I law — into the keeping of the officers of the law ; 
and what are they to do with him ? Why, to 
keep him in such custody until he is brought to 
the place from whence the process emanated, 
and there to surrender him to the appointed and 
sworn officers of Justice to be presented by a 
Grand Jury — indicted, and arraigned, confront- 
ed with his witnesses and tried according to the 
laws of the land. 

Now, are there any such proceedings under 
this law ? No, the action of the Commissioner 
i is final — he adjudges the accused to be a slave 
— lie pronounces the sentence — he inflicts the 
doom — he elelivers him over to his master — the 
whole matter is ended finally and forever, and 
the owner takes his s!ave and departs with him 
and does what hs pleases with him — chains or 
whips or confines him, or, if he sees fit, sells 
him lo another master. 

And yei the Senator would have you believe 
that the cases are parallel. 

1 will tell you what would be a parallel case. 
Suppose a man charged with having comniitted 
the crime of murder in anoiher Slate should be 
arrested iu this Slate under the Fugitive from 
Justice Act, and brought before the officer 
charged by the law willi his examination, a::d 
that officer, instead of deeiiiing simply upou the 
point whether he ought to be delivered up to be 
carried to the Slate where the crime is charged 
lo have been committed for trial, should pro- 
ceed to try and determine the case itself, and 
should pronounce sentence of guilty and hang the 
accused ui)on the nearest tree. What sort of 
constitutional law would you call that ? 

That would be a case precisely in point, ex- 
cept that in the one case the judgment would 
affect life and in the other liberty. — And is not 
the question of a man's personal liberty as much 
deserving of legal trial as the robbing of a hen- 
roost or Die stealing of a sheep ? Is liberty of no 
vhIiic that it should be thus placed at the sum- 
mary disposal of illegal and irresponsible triba- 



nals—that it should be tlius srvorn away ia south- 
eru courts and bv ex parte interested testimony ? 
Our fatbers did not so regard it — nay, they 
counted Z//e itself as of no value in comparison 
with liberty — they poured out their blood like 
ivater upon the battle-fields of the revolution to 
establish and secure those safeguards and bul- 
warks of individual freedom which are thus 
wantonly and ruthlessly sought to be swept away 
and destroyed. 

No, fellow citizens, the poor slave is placed in 
a worse position tiiau the vilest murderer or fel- 
on who ever trod the earth, for the law secures 
to the latter all the privileo^es and rights of that 
glorious system of the Common Law which is 
founded in the wisdom of ages ; he cannot be 
condemned or punished without a fair and im- 
partial trial — upon legal and competent evidence 
and before regular and responsible tribunals; but 
the peison accused of being a slave is summon- 
ed before a Commissioner by an interested mas- 
ter who has in his pocket, already furnished, his 
own prepared ex parte evidenca which is con- 
clusive and not to be questioned ; and without a 
trial — without a hearing — without an opportunity 
o( vindicating a freeman's birth-right, hs is con- 
demned to hopeless bondage. Is this law — is 
this justice ? Is this the Ccnstitution ? If it be, 
then, I say •vith the gentleman who preceded 
nie, let me quit the country forever I But God 
forbid that any man should cast such an in- 
famous libel upon that instrument — God forbid 
that any man sliould disgrace and blacken the 
names and memories of that glorious old band 
of heroes and patriots fresh from the battle 
grounds of freedom and with hearts glo.ving 
with ardent and unquenchable love of liberty, 
by whom that instrument was framed. 

But there is another argument offered by he 
Senator to ezcusc the u ant of any express provi- 
sion for a jury trial under this law to which he 
gave considerable prominence in his speech and 
which seems to be the one which has had the 
most influence upon the minds of those of our 
citizens who have endeavored to vindicate this 
law ; for, although in point of fact, and practi- 
cally speaking every man knew in his heart it 
amounts to nothing yet, it has an apparent fair- 
nes? as a matter of argument until it is subjected 
to examination. 

The position is this ; that the person delivered 
over under the proceedings instituted under this 
law, has a right to a Trial by Jury in the State 
from which he fi^d. Tiie Senator says: "Wlien 
he returns or is surrendered under the law, he 
is entitled to a Trial by Jury of his rght to Free- 
dom if he demands it, 'and compares tne pro- 
ceedings in this respect to the proceedings under 
the Fugitive from Justice act, under which he 
very truly says the Jury trial is always had in 
the State in which the crime was committed. 

Now, the answer to this is three-fold. 

In the first place, no provision is made by 
this bill or pny where else, for the trial by Jury 
in the State from which the alleged escape took 
place, or where the alleged service is due, or in any 
other State of the claim to ihcindicidual arrested 
under the law, and upon ichich the judgment is 
pronounced. The proceedings of the Comniis- 
sioner in the case before liim are final — the judg- 
ment is conclusive — it determine-^ the question of 
property. The Commissioner adjudicates finally 



and W'ithoUi ap()eal, the right of lbs claimant (o 
the property claimed U7id delivers it over into his 
possession. 

In the case of a fugitive from Ju.'^tice, to which 
the Senator endeavored to compare the proceed- 
ing'5 under this law ; the subsequent proceed- 
ings before a Grand Jury — the finding of the in- 
dictment — the presentment — the arraignment — 
the trial by Jury, arc as much a part of the pro- 
cctdings in the same case, as the process of arrest 
— thev all .'"orm one grand whole, the final result 
of which is acquittal or conviction ; and icithoat 
the former follow ut once in due course of law 
upon the latter, the accused is entitled to be dis- 
charged. But under this law no farther pro- 
ceedings are to be had by the person who has 
instituted the claim, in order to perfect it. The 
master's right is conclusively established. The 
alleged fugitive is delivered over to him as his 
own, to do as he pleases with him. What seen- 
ritij is there that the master will ever carrij 
him hack to the. State from ichick the alleged 
escape is made, and ichcre the alleged service is 
due ? The certificate indeed authorizes a removal 
to that State, but does it coinpel it ? What shall 
prevent the claimant from selling the alleged 
fngitive slave into regions far more remote, and 
where another attempt at escape should be ut- 
terly hopeless ? To whom is the master respon- 
sible if he does not return him to the place men- 
tioned ? How can it then be pretended that this 
law returns the person arrested to the place 
where the alleged labor or service is pretended 
to be due, for a trial there ? If any further pro- 
ceedings are to be instituted, it must be in a new 
suit, viz : a suit of the alleged slave against the 
person claiming him. The master's work is done 
— hisr'ght is established and the alleged fugitive 
must bring his suitfor hisfreedom (if indeed it be 
not a mockery to say he can in reality bring it at 
all in the present state of feeling in the southern 
States,) de novo, in such place, however, re- 
mote, as the cunning or cupidity of tiie master 
shall cause his removal, and this new suit is 
wholly independent of and has no connection 
with the proceedings under the law. 

But, secondly, if this bill did make the pro- 
ceedings before the Commissioner merely min- 
isterial, as in the Fugitive from Justice Act, in- 
stead of judicial as in this, and did in the law 
itself provide for a trial by jury in the State in 
which it is claimed that the alleged service is 
due, it would still be in contravention of the vi'ell 
established principles o.' the common law for the 
reason that in controversies respecting prop- 
erty in chattels the venue, is transitori/ and 
not local, and the place of trial is to he where the 
defendant resides and the property is found to 
which the claim is set up and controverted. If 
a citizen of the South comes into a free State 
and claims a cotton bale which he finds there as 
his, the law does not give the right to him to 
seize the cotton bale and carry it avi^ay with him, 
and compel the defendant to go away from his 
home to test his rights to the property claimed 
before the the tribunals of another State. 

In the case of fugitives from Justice, the rule 
of the common law ia exactly the reverse, — in 
criminal offences the venue is local and they m.ust 
be tried in the place where committed. Bat 
this is not a question of crime, but of property. 
Here is a right of properly set up to a persona! 



8 



chat'el (fcr so t'ue law regards th" slave) In a 
free State. Tlia right is disfiuted by tlie party 
ill possession. Shall not tlie claimant he com- 
pelled to establish his rijrht to tht? thiiicr in con- 
troversv, in the pUce -^vhere the defeudiiit re- 
sides, and the property is found before he s'lall 
be pern)ilted to take it away? 

It is no answer lo this, to say that tlie contract 
out of which the rlehl to demand such labor and 
service grows. wa~ made under and deriv'^s its 
validitv and foice from the laws of anotlier Slate 
and is oroverned and ref»'nl(iie<l bv lhoi»e laws. 
The Constiiution of the United Slates lias ex 
pr'-ssly recognized such right of property as a 
valid right, capable of being asserted and prose- 
cuted in iill ihe States, free as well as slave, and 
no principle is more familiar to every lawyer 
than that the laws of the place" where the con- 
tract is made shall govern its consiruction. It is 
a matter of every dav, for contracts made in the 
Southern States to be enforced in our Northern 
courts. and for the laws of tliose States to be read 
in evidence and commented upon for the con- 
struction of such contract. The "lex loci con- 
tractus" is always respected every^'here. 

But, thirdly this argument of the Senator's 
b'^gs t .e whole question in dispute. It asserts 
that a slace upon his being carried to the slave 
Slate may have tiie sluta's right of tri ;l by Jury 
under the laws of ihese Slates, to prove his free- 
dom. The Senator assumes iha.'- the man ar 
restiid under the proceedings of this law is 
a slarc wincli is the rery ipicslion, for the. trial of 
which, ice ask the serAiritics and safeguards of the 
common laic. We deinaad the rights and pii- 
vileges oi freemen — and he offtrs us the rights 
and privileges o{ slaves. 

Tne whole proceeding under this law and the 
whole argument of the Senator, seem to go up- 
on the princij,'le tiiat because a man is accused 
of being a slave, therefore he is a slave, as some 
are prone to belive a man must be guilty because 
he is indicted. But in reply, v\e sa\', every man 
living in a I'reeStato is presumed to be u free man 
and no man's liljcitijoaght to be tviken f om him 
save by the judgment of his peers under the law 
of the land. Wf ask for every freeman that the 
ij:'cstion of his I bcrty shall not he adjudicated ex- 
cept according to the course of the common law. 
We cbiim that no man whom the law presumes 
free can constitutionally or rightfully be adjudged 
a slure and de.licered into bondage until the fact 
of his slareri/ is If gaily established. 

Of the value of this privilege of a Trial by Ju- 
ry, of a question of Freedom in a Slave Slate, 
with slaveholders forjudges, jurors and x^itnes- 
ses, in States where the law will not a'low a 
man to manumit his slaves even if he will, or a 
free colored citizen, to live, and where the pub- 
lic sentiment will n<t permit a man to utter a 
word orlil't a finger in belialf of the slave, with- 
out the risk of being visited with all the penalties 
of Lvnch law, every freeman can readily form 
an estimate. Valuable as the privilege is in the 
opinion of the Senator, gliwingly as he eulogi/^^s 
it, magnanimous and im[)arihl as the Southern 
courts are in the trial of such cases, andnottcitk- 
itnnding the very great conveniences and benefits 
which ilie Senator thinks are thus aH'orJed to 
the accused in the vindication of his rights, I 
have no manner of doubt that a citizen of a 
free Stale would very cheerfully forego them all 



aid I-,e entire'y satisfied to lake the chnnce 
which the law gives him before a jury of Nort j- 
ern freemen after the manner ol the common 
law. 

Under this law then, it is conceded that Mr 
Commissioner is to trv the case in a summary 
way. But let us look a little farther, and see 
what he is to t'-y. Let us see if poor Tom is to 
ge! any chance to vindicate his rights in the trial 
before him. Can even the Commissioner re- 
ceive and examine the evidence of Tom's frt>e- 
doin ? — can he allow him to show that he .s not 
a slavr!, but a freeman 1 Sot a bit of it. The 
Commissioner is not allowed lo look into the 
question of his freedom or slavery. That point 
was decided before even Tom was arrested — be- 
fore any complaint was entered, any proceed- 
i.igs commenced against him — and what is the 
extent of the Commissioner's [^ower ? it is fim- 
ply this and no more, to determine whether Tom 
Jones is Tom Jones, and that is the only, the 
sole point upon which he can receive auv testi- 
mony. The question of identity is the only 
question for him to try : Is not this so ? Do I 
state the n>atter unfairly ? Do 1 misrepiesent or 
misstate the provisions of the bill ? If there is 
any meaning in words — if there is any power in 
language, what I have said is strictly and liter- 
ally rue. And in order that there may be no 
room for contradiction, no possibility of mistake, 
I will read to you the lOlh section of the act. It 
is as follows : 

'•Sec. 10. And be it further enacted. That 
when any person held to service or labor in any 
State or Territory, or in the District of Colum.- 
bia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom 
such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or 
their agent or attorney may apply to any court of 
record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and 
make satisfactory proof to such court or judge in 
vacation, of the escape afiresaid, and ihat the 
person escaping owed service or labor to such 
pirtv — whereupon the court shall cause a record 
to be made of the matter as proved, and also a 
description of the persons escaping with such con- 
venient certainty as may be: and a transcript of 
Buch record authenticated by the attestation of the 
clerk and seal of the said court being produced in 
any other State, 'Territory or District in which the 
person so escaping may be found, and being ex- 
hibited to any judge, commissinner or other (>ji- 
ccr authorized by the laic of the United States to 
cause persons escaping from service or labor to 
be delicered vp shall be held and taken to be 
full and conclusice evidence of tlie fact of 
escape, and that the serrice or labor of tlie 
person escipi'ig is due to the parly in suci 
record vicntiontd. And upon the produc- 
tion by the said party of other and further evi- 
deice, if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in 
addition to wh.it is contained in the said record 
of llie identity of the person escaping, he or she 
shall be delivered up to the claimaut. And the 
said court, commissioner, ju<lge, or other person 
authorized by this act lo grant certificates to 
claimants of fugilives, shall, upon the production 
of the record and other evidence aforesaid, 
grant to such claimant a certificate of his right 
lo lake any such person identified and proved to 
be owing service or labor as aforesaid, wiiicii 
certificate .-hall authorize such claimant to seize 
or arrest and transport such person to the State 



9 



or Territory from which he escaped — Provided, 
thai nolhiiig herein coii'ained shdil be CMistrued 
as rtquiriiicr the firoduclioa of a trdnscript ol 
such rt-pord as evirlence as aforesaid ; hut in ils 
absfii.ie the claim shall be heard and delerniin 
ed upon other satislaciory proofs competent in 
law " 

Have I misconceived or misrepresented it ? Is 
not what 1 asserted true ? A southern slave- 
holder can go into a southern court and make 
oalli thai a person whom he describes, giving 
the (iescriplion in full, is his slave, and tliat he 
has esraperi. This testimony is given and re- 
corded Without notice to ihe person lo be aSect- 
ed by it, and in iiis absence it is the testimony 
of the party himself, whose interest it is to make 
out the fact and of sucn oi hers as he sees tit to of- 
fer; and vet this f3;;;«»te testimony thus taken, is 
made CONCLUslVt: of the fact liiat the per- 
son described is a slave, and of his escape from 
his master. Was there ever such a foul and in- 
famous outrage as this attempted to be perpe- 
trated under the form of law ? Was there ever 
such a provis^ion as this passed by the llepresent- 
aiives of a free peop'e ? 

The slaveholder, or slave cat.-.her, or kidnap- 
per, tomes into the State ot Illinois. Tom Jones 
has unfortunately fallen under his view. The 
slave cat'^her steps into a southern court, he de- 
scribes Tom accurately from head to foot ; he 
draws a faithful picinrsofhim that cannot be 
mistaken. All this is done while Tom is quietly 
pur.-uiiig his daily duties and enjoying the com- 
forts of his pedceful home, in utter ignorance 
that in the meanwhile his liberty has been sworn 
away — pone forever from hio), even without 
notice and without a hearing. The slave catcher 
goes before the Commissioner, he has his record 
in his pocket, the evidc^nce incontrcvertible, uu 
answerable, and be\ond and above the reach of 
all human scrutiny or question, is in his posses- 
sion — the process is issued — Tom is seized and 
hurried before the Commissioner. Tom says 1 
am not a slave, I never was a slave, I was born 
a freeman in a free fc^late ; or, I have been man- 
umitted, as the case may be ; 1 h ive got my free 
papers in my pocket, 1 will shnw them lo you. 
The slave catciier producfs his record, it estab 
lishis beyond all possilihty of qut- stiou or exam- 
ination that Torn Jones is a slave, and has es- 
caped from his master, and the Commissioner 
says — and is obliged to say, for he is sworn lo 
obey the law, and the law compels him to say — 
1 cannot luok at your free papers, or at your 
testimony that you were born tree —This- paper 
is binding upon me, and proves conclusively that 
'J om Jones is a slave, and has escaped, and the 
only thing left forjou is to show tliat you are not 
the man. But, says Turn, 1 cannot deny my- 
self. 1 am the veritable Tom Jones ; 1 cannot 
disprove my own identity, but I am not a slave 1 
am as much a freeman as you are. Bui it is all 
of no use, he cannot be heard. His testimony 
cannot be received on this point. The Commis- 
sioner at Detroit decided only the other day — 
and he decided rightly and legally — that he 
could not look at the free papers, if they were 
produced. 

And so w ilhout even a chance of proving his 
freedom, without an opportunity of being heard 
by himself or by his witnesses, the alleged fugi- 
tive is condemned into eternal slavery — and this 

2 



is claimed to be done under the coiisliUition and 
the law ; 

And next as lo the writ of Habeas Corpus, 
and the eifect of this law upon thai great writ 

Now, what is the wrt of Habeas Corpus — 
when was it created, and what was its object '( 
It was a writ (or I'le. deliverance of any person 
held under il!egal dures<, or iniprisontiient It 
is the great palladium of individual liberty, with- 
out which no man's freedom would be secure 
for an hour. It was wrested from British ty- 
rants by the irresistible might ol a people who 
had seen thousands ot noble cap'ives, illustrious 
patriots, and iinnjorlal martyrs to the cause of lib- 
erty, humanity, and religion, who, without hav- 
ing comiiiif.ed any oll'ence against thi; law, had 
been borne away by strange and unkniswM pro- 
cesses beneath the "Silent Highway" of that 
grim old Tower of London to dungeons, chains 
and death. 1' was invented to deprive Star 
Chamber tribunals of their oppressive power, 
and lo give lo everv man ihe means of testing 
the right of any other man to hold him even for 
one hour in bondage. 

The Honorable Senator has contended that 
this law does not take away this writ, becauaa 
he says the Constitution expressly secures it, 
and a violation ol the Coii--titution is not to bo 
presumed, and as the act in question says nolT- 
ing expiessly wilh reference to the writ, it must 
be understO(d as not meaning to take it away 
and he cites Mr. Attorney General Crittendon's 
opinion in support of his position. — Now, 1 shall 
s,iy nothing in regard to the express language of 
the 6th section of the act, securing the owner of 
the slave, under the certificate of the commission- 
er, in the possession ol the slave, "free from all 
molestation or obstruction by any writ o: process 
whatever ;" because that point has been most 
fully and forcibly presented by the genllemaa 
who preceded me, and I can add iiotl.ing to the 
strength of his argument.* But I shall take ajj 
the view of the matter which the Senator him- 
self takes. I shall meet him on his own ground 
and see what sort of a writ of Habeas Corpus it 
is which he clanis is given by this act. 

And what is it ? He contends that Judgo 
Spring may receive the application, may issue 
the writ of Habeas Cor()us. The consli*aitir>:i 
of our fathers, he tells you, never designed that 
any man >hould be deprived of this iocsiimabie 
wiit. And what do you think he says can be 
done after the writ has been issued and return- 
ed ? Why, Judge Spring can have the exquisite, 
mspeakab'e happiness and satisfaction of gazing 
at the signature of Mr. George Wortiiington 
Meeker, or any other Commissioner's sigrian;re 
which is subscribed to the cerliticate, of look- 
ing at ihe bit of sealing wax by him attatcheil 
thereto, and of seeing if such Commissioner has 
set forth in du? form and proper legal phraseolo- 
try the proceedings before him. Jfso, ihfre ia 
tlie end of the matter — that is the v, hole author- 
ity of the Judge in the premises, even upon iVlr. 
Douglas' construction. Well, truly that is a 
most valuable, a n)osl inestimable privilege. Is 
this all that the great writ ot Habeas Corpus 
amounts to ? Was it for such a miserable tech- 
i.icahty as this that our fathers for lo'igages have 
contended ? Did they mean that the writ should 



See Appendix, note (0) . 



10 



only s'ive the power ioUokaL the seal and signa- 
pure of a star chamber court ' What sort ol se- 
curity ("or persooal liherty does such a process as 
this atf'jrd ? It is a mockery to talk about this 
beiiiij a priilege of Habeis Corpus We are 
couundiiijj fur a substance, not a shadow. The 
geiiileiiiau's writ of Habeas Corpus "keeps 
the word of promise to llie ear, and breaks it to 
the hope." It does not enable the person 
char^^ed as a fugitive to obtain anv rehearing or 
eiamiiifition of the queslion of his right to J i cc- 
doin. Mv instnuting a tribunal or_/i/t«Z anrf cx- 
clvsire j ■risdiction where ihe fact ol slaverv is 
estal)lisiie(i by ex parte trslimo;:y, this act etiec- 
lually robs the the accused of all the ttnr^ts of 
the writ, even if, as contended by the gentle- 
man, it tyrants liim \tsfonn. 

To illtislrate more fully my meaning and the 
dilVerrnce bjtvveen the writ of Habeas Corpus 
which the gentleman c^^uiends for and that 
v/hich I demand for every man living in a land 
of freedom, let us take a case. 

h lias been often decided not only in the 
State but in the United Stales courts that if a 
master shall voluntarily bring his slave into a 
tree State that the slave thereby be. omes free. 
Such a case is not within the sense of tho con- 
stitution 'an er;cape,' and therefore is not saved 
by the consiilution, and falls within the princi- 
ple of the commou law. Now, suppose a mas- 
ter in ignorance of this law or Irustinjr in his at- 
tachment and fidelity, has voluntarily brought 
Tom Jones (for let us keep up the family name 
which the Hon. Senator introduced) into a free 
Stale, and there Tom takes his leave and refu- 
ses to return. Tom has now become a freeman 
and i« entitled to all the privileges and secuiities 
which the law gives to freemen — he is just as 
much a freeman as I pm or any of yon are. 

IS'ovv, suppose Tom's former master to appear 
in the southern court and make the affidavit and 
proof required that Tom was his slave, giv'ng 
his description in full, so that it cannot be mis- 
taken, it is Tom and it is no' any body else — 
the neighborhood wo'ild all know that he did 
have such a slave as Tom : the testimony coulii 
all be given in perfect fairness and g( od failh, 
even by a conscientious man — for you know well 
enougli that there is not a southern man who 
would not believe that any such decisions as 
those I have referred to were perfectly absurd, 
and a mere outrage upon southern rights. — 
Tom's identity and the fact of his escape would 
therefore be proved under the law, of record by 
sufficient testimony. 

The claim is now ready for trial, the slave 
o«ner comes to the free Slate and procures 
Tom's arre.st, his identity is j erfectly evident, 
and the Commissioner of course is bound by the 
record and delivers him over into the custtdy of 
his master, as his slave. 

Now, suppose Tom Jones sues out his writ of 
Habeas Corpus, and in his petition sets forth the 
facts which 1 have stated, that he was volunta- 
rily brought into a free State by his master, and 
theief. re— although he is the identical Tom 
Jones described in the proceedings — he is by 
law a freeman. 1 ask you if, under the provi- 
sions of this law, even umier the honorable Su-n- 
ator's con^lruction, the Judge could look into 
the fact thus set up ? No, he could pay no 
altantiou to it. He could look only at the form 



of the papers. The fact of freedom or slavery, 
the great ipieslion involved in the conlro/ersv, 
he could not look into or disturb. Tliat has been 
decided bv a tribunal of final and conclusive ju- 
risd ction. and any investigalion of the merits is 
utterly beyond the purview of his authoritv, and 
there is no remed\. Tom must go back into 
slavery.* 

If this be so, then under the ordinary, every 
d-iy iiperalion of this la'v, free citizens of tree 
States, as much entitled to the privileges of free- 
men, as any one of us, may be deprived of all 
the guaranties and safeguards, which the com- 
mon law has established, as the great bulwarks 
of liberty, and without a trial and upon e.\ parte 
testimony, may be consigned to ihe terrible 
doom of hopeless, life-long bondage. If this is 
true, wi I you tell me that such a law can be 
constitutional 7 Will any man, with a free heart 
in his bosom, tell me that a law which can, un- 
der its ordinary and usual operation, make 
slaves of freemen, is in conformity with that 
constitution which was framed by patriots for 
tile government of a tree peofile? 

Hut, savs Mr. Douglas, this law is no worse 
than the law of 1793 — it is substant ally the 
same law as that and you have made no com- 
plaint about that law. He tells yon that this is a 
belter law than the law of 17!)3. W'Uv, gentle- 
men, when the Hon Senator was upon this part 
of the argument 1 began to doubt if I should not 
have to go home and thank (lod for the great 
blessing vouchsafed to us in this new Fugitive 
Slave Law ! The Senator gravely sought to 
make you believe that the new law is a great 
improvement upon the old one and morefatora- 
blti to justice and freedom. He says it is a great 
deal better law lor the slave himself. The old 
law, he says, permitted the maste.-- to seize his 
slave by the nape ol the neck and drag him from 
one end of the State to the other without any 
process, and this being rather too outrageous a 
mode of proceeding even for a slave. Congress 
beneficently provided this new law which con- 
tains better securities for the rights of tlie slave 
and iirevents his being taken except according to 
the forms of law. 

Well, now, it is a little extraordinary that for 
sixty years th's law of 1793 has been in force and 
our colored brethren have all the '.ime been 
pursuing their rrspeciive vocations in tranquility 
and contentment, without an.xiety or alarm, and 
ye no sooner is this new law passed and pro- 
mulgated than yon see one universal scattering 
among them. From all pans of the country 
Ihiy areflving as fast as wind and steam can carry 
them — one rushing mulliluJe onward toward 
the North — the railroad car and steamboat are 
loaded witu them — they line by thousands the 
shores of Canada — the British birracks are filled 
with terror stricken crowds — homes once the 
abodes of peace and plentv, are deserted — prop- 
erty is abandoned as an idle and worthless gift — 
families are broken np — households are parted 
wide asunder-and with hot baste and wild terror 
they are seeking the bleak and barren wilds of 
Canada — with Ihe rigors of a norlhern winter 
staring them in the face — and the risk of want, 
and sufTering, and starvation impending over 
their heads. Why, what is the matter with 



*See .Appendix, Note (7.) 



11 



you ? What are vou runnings away for ? What 
are you g;oing to Canada for ? Don't you know 
that >' eiiator Uous;las has {;ot a new and im- 
proved Fugitive Slave 1-aw [)assed whicli is ex- 
pressly for your henefit ; don't you know that 
the new bill secures your rights a {jreat deal 
better than the old ! Oh, what a bitter rnockeiy 
is such an argument as this upon the terrible 
misery and woe which have fallen upon that un- 
happy race I 

And again, what means all tliis tremendous 
excitement ? For sixty years the country has re- 
mained in a state of quiet and composure with 
reference to the cxistiiigr laA on the subject of 
fugitive slaves, and all of a sudden the whole 
country is in a blase. Behold, in the city of 
Detroit, seven companies of soldier-: and, among 
the rest, the military force of the United States, 
marched out .n all the paraphernalia of militarv 
display — banneis fl\ing and drums beating, all 
to guard one poor nesro ! From East to West 
there has sprung p from the heart ol the mas- 
ses one indignant burst of feeling. From i Id 
Faneuil Hall, the cradle of our liberties, wiiere 
but a short time since the free citizens of ihe old 
Pay State ga'here ■ themselves together, to the 
shores of Lake Michigan, it is all excitement 
upon the subject of this new Fugitive Slave 
Law. Now did vou ever see such a stupid peo- 
ple — such a nation of fools snd blockheads ? Do 
they not see — can they not understand that this 
is Senator Douglas' improved Slai^e bill — that 
it is a great deal better than the old one — thai 
it contains no provisions different from the old 
law, and lias got new sei;urities for ju.stice and 
freedom, designed esjicciallij for the bcnrjit of fu- 
gitive slaves I 

And then, fellow citizem?, to think of the 
magnanimity and philanthropy of our South- 
ern brethren ! Here the whole of the last 
session of Congress a period of some ten months, 
they have been loudly clamoring for a new Fu- 
gitive Slave Law, speech after speech has been 
made, and that has been ever the I ivrden of the 
song ; and what do you think f.'icy wonitd it for ? 
Why because Ihe old law was defective. It did 
not provide sufficient securities for the poi r fugi- 
tives. They were liable to be seized under it witii- 
out process. Our Southern brelhern could not 
stand this, it was uio much for tbcir tender sen- 
sibilities — the fugitive must have better protec- 
tion than this — and so they got up a new law 
and tvcrij man of them vot.d in its favor — and 
the result is this New and Improved Fugitive 
Slave Bill, c ontrived and designed especially for 
the better proteciion of the righis of alleged fu- 
gitives from labor ! Why, v^'e made nu com- 
plaint of the old law — the Senator i inif^elf ad- 
mits that we were satisfied — we asked fur no 
improvements. But nothing will satisfy the 
troubled minds of our Southern brethren — they 
cannot leave the poor slaves in such a defence- 
less condition and they must give us another bill 

AND THIS IS THK BILL ! 

Was there ever anything more ridiculous than 
such a pretence as (his ? 

Mr. Douolas asks why we have made no ex- 
citement about the law of 1793, which was the 
same thing in sut stance as the present law i 
will show you in a moment that there is a wide 
ditFerence between the law of 1793 and tiis law, 
and that, although that was bad enough, this is 



infinitely, unspeakably worse. But I will tell 
vou why the law of 1793 made litMe or no ex- 
c'.tement Mr Douglas himt-elf gave you the 
reason for it, only il was in another porion of 
his argument. It was because the law of 1793 
was practically innpeialive — il amounted to 
nothing — it became, uliriost from its passage, 
lo all intents and for all praciical rur])oses, a 
dead letter. The northern people are too 
shrewd to tight about words, they leave the war 
about abstractions lo their brethren of Virginia. 
They were content th^it the law did no harm. 

Mr. Josiah Quincy, one of the oldest and 
most eminent lawyers of Massacbu.-etis, states 
that the law of 1793 was odious in the estiina- 
lion ot the people of Massachusetts, but that 
they cared very litth, for its passage, because 
thev saw it never cnulJ be enforced. It impos- 
ed its duties upon State magistrates and oHicers, 
and they knew that thev would never carry 
them out in any oppressive or u' just manner, 
and they never did. He states thai for fiity-si.K 
years since the law has been in force, there has 
iioi been a solitary slave delivered up und r it, 
and he did not believe there ever would or could 
be. He gives a very amusing account of the 
first attempt to arrest a s'ave which was made 
under the law of 1793. He states tbnt the pro- 
cess was issued by a Justice ot the Feace, that 
he was retained as counsel lor the alleg'd slave 
— that he prepared bis brief, and went down 
loaded wi'h all the necessary authorities. He 
found a great crowd of people assemtiled, aud 
that while he was in the midst of his argument, 
ho heard a noise, and on turning round he saw 
the constables lying spra ling on the floor, and 
a passage opened through the croud, through 
which the fugitive was taking his departure 
without stopping to hear the opinion of the Court, 
and that was the last of that case, and that was 
the last of the law of 1793 in Massachusetts. 

That, then, was the reason why the law of 
1793 produced no excitement, even bef re the 
Supreme Court decided it to be uncou.-tilnlional; 
because it was not and could not be enforced to 
eny considerable extent — because its duties were 
imposed upon State ofiicers, some of whom 
would not execute them at all, and those who 
did gave to the alle</ed fugitive such ample op- 
portunitv of defence, that there was nothing in 
their proceedings to excite alarm. In the State 
of Connecticut and we believe in other Northern 
States ihev actually provided for a trial by jury 
under that verv law of 1793. The Supreme 
Court of the United States subsequently pro- 
nounced it to be unonslitutional, which left the 
law with so few officers to enforce it that it be- 
came of no efl'ect. But, if that law had ever 
bee:) efTective— if vital force had been given 
to its provisions by the institution of extraor- 
dinary and irresponsible tribunals, and the es- 
tablishment of illegal modes of trial, to carry 
it out, il would have created as wild a storm of 
excited feeling through the North as this law 
has made, and %vill continue to muke until it is 
repealed. 

But the present law is infinitely worse than 
the law of 1793. There is one provision in this 
law which was not in the law of 1793 — a provi- 
sion which constitutes, in my estimation, it3 
worst aad most odious feature — and tliatisthe 
provisioa making an ex parte record, sworn to 



12 



by the partv liiriKelf, made up in the absence cf 
r.ad without iidlice lo the. person to bt fit^Vcted 
bv it, Conclusive ofthe furl of his s avery and 
eppape. anii ths prov'ision, wliich outra es every 
prii)ci|ile of law rtnd ju<ii(.-e — which constitutes 
the most infiirnous chius- in this iiifainous law, 
was one which the honorable Senator, with ail 
his apparent candor and fairness, saw fit to pass 
b}- in silt-iice. Was tlnTe any such provision as 
this in ihe law of 1793? Nothing of the kmd 
That law <t.>vr tn the exatiiiiiinjr tnaj;istraie tlie 
puwf.r to go intii the icliolc case — the fact of sla- 
very and iif escipe were to he made out by com 
petent and sufliiMent te-timony. aid oflts sutS- 
c;eii''v he was permitted to be the judije 

'i'el! me, then that there is no ditierence be- 
tween this law and the hisv oi 17!)3 I The law 
of 1793 was bad enough, God knows, but even 
that stop[)ed short of this — even that prov ded an 
opportunity for a trial and a hearing of some 
kind. That did noi condemn a man who was 
pursuing his daily toils in a land of freedom, in 
Utter uiicon5ciousness of the black doom which 
was imp-nding over his head to have his free- 
dorn svvorn away without notice, and without a 
liraring, and himself consigned to all the horrors 
of liofielcss slavery. 

Is it not so ? Do I misrepresent the matter ? 
I clialle.ige conlradiction. I defy any man to 
show that such is not the true and necessary 
construction of this law. 

Mr. I^ee here arose and asked if proof of iden- 
tity could not be introduced before the Commis- 
si', ner. and in this manner the person arrested 
could show he was not the same person 

Mr. Larned — I have slated so again and 
again. //"/(« is not the person described, he can 
bhow thai he is not the peison — but is the slave 
catcher going to d-i his business so stupidly, to 
make such a fool of himself as to have tiie pro- 
cess of arrest issued against the wrong m.m ? 
IJut admit that he is the same person, and yet 
iTiiirtlains that he is not a slave but a freeman, 
or t!;ai he his been manumitted, that he, the 
veritahle individual descrih.d in and set forth in 
Ihe record is entitled to all the rights of a free 
citizen ; what are von goiog to do then ? is not 
the record cnnclaslcc upon tiiis point ? Can you 
go behind it— can you qu stion it — and i< not 
then the main a id all important point prejudged 
and decided without a hearing 7 

Mr. Lee aiiain arose and said he should like 
to have the speaker give the name of any Judge 
of any northern court who would give such a 
construction to the act as to make the record 
conclusive ofthe question of slavery and esrape 

Mr Larned — ike gen'leman desires of me 
that I shall give the iiime of any Judge of a 
Ncrihern Court who would put such a construc- 
tion Uficn this section of the act as to make the 
record conclusive of the fact of slavery, lean- 
not of course give him the name of any such 
Judge, because the bill is just passed, an I no cases 
have been decided under it; moreover 1 am un- 
able lo sav whether there is any Judge of a 
Northern Court base enough to lend his aid in 
any way in carrying out so infamous a law ; but 
lean tell hi'ii what construction such a Judge 
xcoiild be ohli'^cd to gire under his oalh of office if 
be gave any, and that is the very construction 
vhich 1 have (-hown, because the law requires 
icii a construction, and ia the most express and 



explicit terms, and therefore he could not avoid 
i;ivmg it. Why. what are the words used — 
iiiey are "ii ihull be ronchisice" What does 
conclusive mean 7 Why. it means conclusive, 
don't it ? — final, that which is not to be ques- 
tioned or examined into or controverted. 

Mr. Dutch rose and staleii that he thought 
the spe;iker misconeeived the objection as to 
proof which could be otlVred on the question of 
identity. Could the accused not show that he 
was not the m^m described in the record ? 

Mr. J^arned — I had admitted this so often 
that I su|ipo>ed it fully understood. Uorioubt' 
edly if the slaveholder had gone into Ihn South- 
ern Court and made his proo'' that Tom Jones 
WHS his slave and had e>ca()ed. and described 
him in full as a mau six feet and a quarter of aa 
inch high, with one eye a little squint, and nose 
somewhat awry, an) a limp in the led Ifg. there 
is no doubt that under such an atlidavit they 
could not arre.-t Mr. Dutch ; and if they did, he 
V ould be permitted to go on aud show that he 
did not auswer the description 

J\o, gentlemen, 1 tell you I am right in this 
matter. i speaii the truth — I do not misrepre- 
sent this bill in the slightest particular. It is as 
I have stated, and it cannot be shown otherwise. 

1 repeat, then, that under this law t' e doom 
of shivery may be pronouced upon a citizen liv- 
ing in a free State, in his absence aud without 
notice, and without a hearing. But, sa}s the 
ho .orable Senator, we are not to suj'pose that 
our Southern brcihern would so dishonor them- 
selves as to be guilty of false sweaing. Oh 
no ! we are not to believe that the chivalry cau 
do a thing of this kind. They are so far above 
and beyond even doubt or sus|)icion, that you 
may trust them to ssvear through their own ca- 
ses without a fear ! I had supposed that false 
swearing was a matter of every aay's experence 
in courts of justice. 1 had supposed that the 
temptation lo false swearing was so great, where 
a man's own interests depended upon the event 
of the suit, that the common law had for ages 
refused to permit a partv to testify at nil in his 
0wncai/se. A'e the influences of slavery so ele- 
vating — does the holding of human beings in 
bondyge exercise such an ennobling aud pu- 
rifyinL'' power over the character, as to ex dt our 
Southern brethern to such a height of immacu- 
late and incorruptible inte^rily, that their evi- 
dence shall not only be reciicid in 'h>*ir own 
case, hut that that evidence shall be cuncbisice 
to decide the case in their oicn furor f 

1 would confide great rights and great inter- 
ests to no man's honesty — to no man's word — 
to no man's oalh, whether he lives north or 
south, wlien 1 have a right to demand that 
which is a better dependence than any man's 
honor, honesty or oath, and that is the rights 
and privileges — the safeguards and securities 
founded in Ihe wisdom of the common law, and 
belonging lo me and lo you and to all of us as 
the free citizens of a free State. We are all 
freemen — every one of us — every man within 
the sound of my voice, be his skin white or black 
— aye, even if he be a fug'tive slav**, just es- 
caped from the land of bondage, and there may 
be such before me — I say, in the eye of the law 
he is a freeman, entitled to all the rights and 
privileges of a freeman, until the fact of his slav- 
ery is legal')' established. 



APPENDIX. 



Nole (1) The fullawing is a copy of the law 
of South Car>lina, under which the itn[iri#oii- 
ment of free colored citizens, mentioned in the 
uro-iiinent, has been made. 

"A;id be il further enacted by tlie authority 
aforesaid, That if any vessel shall couie into any 
port or harbor of this State from any other State 
or foreign port, havinij on board any free negroes 
or persons uf color a-; cooks, stewards or mariners, 
or in any other employment on board ofsuid ves- 
sels, sucli FREE negrroes, or (>ersons of color, shall 
be liiibte to be seized and confined in jail until 
said vessels shall clear out and depart from this 
Stale; and that when said ves.-el is ready to sail, 
the Captain of said vessel shall be bound to carry 
awav the said free negroes, or persons of color, 
and pay the expense of iheir detention, and in case 
ol his iiealect or refusal so to do, shall be liable 
to be indicted, and on conv'Ction thereof, shall 
be fined in a sum not less than one thousand dol- 
lars and imprisoned not less than two months, 
and such free kegroes or persons of color 

SHALL BE DELI-.IED AND TAKEN AS ABSOLUTE SLAVES, 

AND SOLD, in conformity to the provisions of the 
act passed on 20th December, 1820, aforesaid." 

This law has been repeatedly declared uncon- 
stitutional. Judge Johnson, one of the Judges 
of the Supreme Court of the United Stales, and 
a native of South Carolina, said of it "that in re- 
gard to its unconstitutionality, it is not too much 
to say iticiU not bear an argument " (See Niles' 
Register Sept., lH-33. 

Mr. Wirt, when Attorney General of the Uni- 
ted States, also pronounced it unconstitutional. 

Jt was lor the purpose of instituting legal i)ro- 
ceedings to bring this law before the Supremo 
Court of theUnited States, that Mr. Hoar, an emi- 
nent citizen of Massachusetts, wassent in the year 
1344 to the City of Charleston On his arrval 
there he conuDunicated the object of his mission 
in respectful terms to the Governor of the Stale, 
and in a lew days thereafter was driven, under 
threats of violence, from the State. 

That law still remains in full force in the Stale 
of South Carolina, and not only so, but on the 
lOlh Dec. 1844, the Legislature of that Slate 
passed a further law, depriving the persons ar- 
rested, imprisoned and sold, under the act above 
set forth, of any right of Habeas Corpus. So 
that the legality of the imprisonment cannot be 
brought in question before any Court, Slate or 
Federal. And the State has further provided 
that any person, who either on his own behalf, 
or acting under the authority of any Slate com- 
mission, shall come into that State with intent 
to disturb or hinder the operation of said laws, 
hall be subject lo fine and imprisonment. 



Under this law there have been frequent in' 
stances of free colored citizens being sold into sla- 
very- 

Note. (2). In the Senate, June 3. 1850, Mr. 
Webster introduced a Fugitive Slave Bill, which, 
with the remarks made by him at the time, will 
be found below: 

It will be seen that this bill not only provides 
for ilte trial bi/ Jury of &\\ the questions involved, 
including theVact of slavery and e-capp, but con- 
tains no provision making an exparie record evi- 
dence at all, much less conclusive evidence, upon 
the facts of slavery and escape. 

Mr. Webster. Mr. President, at an early pe- 
riod of the session, 1 turned my alteniion to the 
subject of preparing a bill respecting the reclaim- 
ing of fugitive slaves, or of preparing certaia 
amendments to the existing law on that subject. 
In pursuance of this purpose. I conferred with 
some of the most eminent members of the pro- 
fession, and especially with a iii^h judicial au- 
thority, who has had more (o do vviih questions 
of '.his kind, 1 presume, than any other judge in 
the United States. After these consultations and 
conferences, as early as in februarv, 1 prepared 
a bill amendatory of ihe act of 1793, intending 
when a proper time came, to lay i; before the 
Senate for its considerati 'n. I now wish to pre- 
sent the bill to the Senate unaltered and precise- 
ly as il was when prepared in February last. 

Mr. Datton. I hope that the paper will be 
printed. 

The bill was then laid on thel&ble and ordered 
to be printed as follows: 
A Bill amendatory of "An act respecting fugi- 

lives from justice and persons escaping from 

the service of their masters," approved Febru- 
ary 12, 1793. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resenl'itivcs of the United S al::s of America in 
Congress assembled. That the provisions of the 
said act shall e.xtend to the Territories of the 
United States; and thfit the commissioners who 
now are, or who may hereafter be appointed by the 
Circuit Courtsof the United States, or the District 
Courts where Circuit Courts are not established, 
or by the Territorial courts of the United States, 
all of which courts are authorized and required to 
appoint one or more commissioners in each coun- 
ty to take acknowledgment of bail and affidavits, 
and also to take depositions of v^ilnesses in civil 
causes, and who shall each, or any judge of the 
United States on complaint being -made on oaih 
to him that a fugitive from labor is believed to be 
within the State or Territory in which he lives, 
issue his warrant to the marshal of the United 
States, or to any other person who shall bo will- 



13 



We will stand by the constitution, we v^ill 
abide by all its coinpronii&es — we will he true to 
the compact which our fathers made -every 
word — everv letter of it. We will jjive lo our 
Southern brethren the same opporiiiiiities— the ! 
same jirivilf jres — the same mode of proceeding 
to enforf-e th^ir riijlits of |)ro[)erly in their slavt-s 
which we ouToelves enjoy in the prosecution of 
our own rights of property ; but s-halj we dii 
more? are we called on to do more? VVIiv should 
we be asked lo g've to this institution of human 
slaverv 7ycr)(//c;r privilejier' ? Why should we ex- 
lend to the prosecution ol claims of property in 
human beings — a kir.d of ( ropertv po odious in 
the estimation of freemen — privileges which 
are given to no other species of pro(»erty ? 

No, fellow citizens, J would give what the 
constitution requires, but not one jot or tittle 
more. L^l a proper law be passed, securing to 
the alleged fugitive all the .-afeguardo and im- 
munities provided by the common law, and tor 
one 1 w li give it my conscientious and honest 
sanction and support. But let my right arm 
wither toils socket, when I shall lift it to give the 
slightest aid or countenance to a law hke this, 
which is in violation of the most sacred princi- 
ples of the constitution and the mo*t preciou;- 
rights of freemen. 

Isaac N. Arnold, Esq., in behalf of the Com- 
mittee on Resolutions introduced the following, 
which were adopted with great enthusiasm : 

1. Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave Act, 
recenilv passed by Congres^^, is revolting to our 
moral sense, and an outrage upon our feelings of 
justice and humanity. It disregards all the se- 
curities wliii'h the Constitution and laws have 
thrown around personal liberty. Its direct ten- 
dency is lo alienate the people from th'-ir love 
and reverence for the Government and institu- 
tions of our country. 

2. Resolved, That we respect and will ever 
uphold the Constitution of our country, and the 
laws pa.ssed in pursuance thereof. It was ordain 
ed to establish justice and secure the blessings 
of liberty ; but this lawviolaies its letter and 
spiri.-j 

It takes away all the benefits of the writ of 
Habeas Corpus 

It withholds the Triaf. by Jury. 

It authorizes the deprivation of liberty with- 
out due process of law. 



It clothes inferior avd irr?sponsil)ie of!icei8 
with the highept judicial powers. 

It gives a larsjer reward for a dpciaion in favor 
of slavery, than f< r one in favor of freedom. 

It gives no (ijipcid from the decision, however 
corru|it, ignorant, prejudiced, or infamous the 
officer may be. 

It sends men into perpetual slavery, on ex 
parte and summary proceedin2!=, and then fere 
without a (rial, and without atlordiiig the alleg- 
I d fugiiive any o[)porlunity to prove his freedom; 
lor tiiese and other olijections, we denounce the 
law as unconstitutional and void ; and in the 
name of lilierty, jusii^^e, and right, and in the 
namwofthe maiig'ed and violated cuns'iiuliou 
of our country, Wf d'^mai.d iis repeal. 

3. Resolved, That we are called upon to con- 
demn this law, not only by the considerjiion of 
the claims of our sutlVring fellow men upon our 
sympathy and aid, but by a proper regard for our 
own personal ealVty, as this law is no respecter 
of persons or coiii|.|e.\ions, making no distinc- 
tion hetween whiles and blacks — bond and free 
— subjecting all alike — Anglo-yaxon and Afri- 
can, ail colors and degrees, to the hazard of 
being seized as fugitives froin labor, and remov- 
ed beyond the limits of this State to distant 
places without the means of 1-gal resistfince. 

4. Resolved, That while such acts reniain up- 
on our statute book we will not tolunturily aid 
in its execution, but we will in every legal 
and constitutional way, seek to protect and se- 
cure the rights ami liberties of those who are 

[ sought to be made its victims. 
j 5. Resolved, That this enactment should not 
I only cover with re| roach its authors utid advo- 
j cales, but those also w ho connived at its pass- 
I age, concealing tliemselves on ihe fin.il vote lo 
escape the indignation of a constituency whose 
, dignitv and independence they have sacriliced 
I and wliose character they have blackened and 
disgraced. 

6. Resolved, That we, as the friends of uni- 
versal liberty, are admonished of the necessity 
of renewed and conlitiuous agitation on the great 
subj ct of human slai'ery, while F'r1';e Spkixh 
and a I^kke Prk's are yet ours Let Ihe coun- 
try be rockfd as bv a tempe.'t, until the political 
Piiaraobs of this great land shall be constrained 
to "let the I'eople go " 



15 



in£j to serve it, authorizing an ariesl of the fugi- 
live, if witliin the Siaieor i'erritory, to be broujiht 
before him or some other cornniissioiier or judge 
of the Uiiiltd t^talet; court within the Slate or 
Territory, that liie rii^ht of the person claiming 
the service of such (utrilive may be examined. — 
And on tiie hearing, depositions duly authenti- 
cated, ami parol |)roof, shall be heard to establish 
the identity of the fugitive and the right of the 
claimant, and also to thow that shivery is estab- 
lished in the State fami which tiie fugitivi ab- 
sconded. And if on such hearing, the commis- 
sioner or judge shall find the claim to the servi- 
ces of the f'jgilive, ^s asserted, sustained by the 
evidence, he shall make out a certificate of the 
material facts proved and of his judgment there- 
on, which he sluill sign, and which shall be con- 
clusive of the riglit of the claimant or his agent 
to take the fugiii e biick to the Slate from whence 
he fled, l^ruiidcd, that if the lugitive shall deny 
that he owes service to the claiinant under the 
laws of the Slate where he was held, anii af;er 
being duly cantoned as to th'^ solemnities and 
consequences of an oalh. shall swear to the same, 
the commissioner or judge shall forlhwith sum- 
mon a jury of tv.'elve men to try the right of the 
claimani, who shall be sworn to try the cause ac- 
cording to evidence, and the commissioner or 
judge shall preside at the trial and determine the 
compete;. cv of the proof. 

Sec 2. And he it further enacted. That the 
commissioner shall receive ten dollars in each 
case tried by him, as aforesaid, the jurors fifty 
cents each, and the marshal or other person serv- 
ing the process shall receive five dollars forserv- 
ing the warrant on each fugitive, and for mileage 
and other services the same as are allowed to 
the marshal f;>r similar services, to be e.xamined 
and allowed by the comnlissioner or judge, and 
paid by the claimant. 

Note. 1 3). It .>-eems that the right of the Slave 
to a trial by jury was expressly refused by the 
Senate. 

We copy the following from the proceedings in 
theU. S. "Senate, Aug, 16, 1850: 

Mr. Diylon moved to amend the bill, by add- 
ing an amendment, heretofore offered by iWr. 
Webster, graming a jury trial to the slave: and 
the question being taken, it was rejected — Yeas, 
11; JMays, 27. 

Yf.as — Messrs. Chase, Davis of Mass., Da\ton, 
Dodge of Wis., Greene, Hamlin, Phelps, Smith, 
Upham, Walker and Winthrop. 

Naijs — Messr-*. Atchison, Badger, J5arnwell, 
Bell, Benton, Berrien, Buller, Cass, Davis of 
Miss., Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Houston, 
Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Norton, Pratt, 
Rush, Sebastian, Sonle, Sturgeon, 'I'urney, Un- 
derwood, Wales and Yulee. 

Note. (4). The portion of the argument upon 
the right of trial by jury in the Slave State, 
where the alleged service is due, formed no part 
of the speech as originally delivered. It was de- 
signed by the speaker to have consic'ered this 
point, but from want of time, he omitted so to 
do. and aflerwiirds published, with the report of 
the speech in the daily papers, the argument on 
these points, as here given in the form of a note, 
id inserts it here in the body of the speech to 
'ierve the unity of t!te argument, 
•at the right of a trial by jury was given in 
t€ from whence the alleged Slave escaped, 



was one of the mnin points taken by Mr. Doug- 
las in defence of the law. 

Note. (5). The view taken in the ai-gument 
of llie true meaning and inlenlinn ol tlie proviso 
in the constitution respeiliiii; Fugitn'e Slaves, is 
consinant with and sustained by the language 
of ihe proviso. The language 's, "shall be de- 
livered up on claim of the paity to whom such 
service or labor may be due " 

"A claim (said Juilge Storv, in giving the opin- 
ion ol the court, the case of Prifg. ?i; Common- 
wealth of P<?iins>lvania) in a just juridical sense, 
is a demand of some matter of right made by one 
per.son U|)on another, to do or lo forbear to do 
some act or thing as a matter of duty, " and adds 
tliat the riirht to a slave, being "aright of pro- 
perty capable of bei..g recognized and asserlod 
bv proceedings before a court of justice, between 
parlies adverse to each other, it constitutes in 
the strictest sense, a controrcrsy between the 
parties, arisingunder the Con.slitution of (heUnit- 
ed St^-.tes, within the express delegation of ju- 
dicial power given by that instrument." 

The question, then, of the right of tiie claim- 
ant to tlie person claimed, is in the language of 
the court in that case, "a controrcrsy hcticccn 
adverse parlies respecting a rig 'it of propirly." 
The C(institution expressly provides "that in all 
suits at common law, where the value iu contro- 
versy shall exceed twenty dollars, tiie right of 
trial by jury shall be preserved " It was decided 
by the Supreme Cour' of the United Stales, in 
case Palmer vs. Bedford, 3, Pet 447, that the 
expression, "suits at common law," inchtde i all 
controversies properly cognizable by the common 
law (in contra-distinction of tho.se of admiralty 
and equity jurisdiction) which would of course 
iiiclurie contioversies res|>ecting personal liberty. 
That a mat»'s liberty is worth more than $>20, it 
would hardly require an authority to prove, but 
if it did, we believe it has been expressly decided 
to be worth over #2,000, so as to come within 
the cases appealable to the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

Note. (()). The point referredto was one taken 
and argued with great force, by James H. Col- 
lins, Esq., based upon tlie construction of the 
language of the 6lh section of the A'-t. That 
section provides tiiat the certificate of the c.>m- 
missioiier shall be conclusive of the right lo re- 
move the person described in it, to the Slate or 
Territory from which he esnaped — '■'and shall 
prevent all molestation of said person by any 
PROCESS issued bv any court, judge, magistrate 
or other person." 

Mr. Co!lins contended that the word "process" 
is a word, in law, of extensive signification, 
that it embraces every species of writs — and 
that as the law forbids that any process should 
be issued for the molestation of the person hold- 
ing the alleged fugitive — that it must be con- 
s>rutd to include the writ of Habeas Corpus, 
which is "a process," and therefore to prevent 
the i-suing of that writ. The view taken by M.-. 
Collins is sustained by the following vote of the 
Senate on the bill: 

Mr. Winlhrop submitted an amendment, to 
the third section, to the effect that the award of the 
commissioners shall not stay or hinder a writ of 
habeas corpus, &.C. 

And this amendment, after debate by Messrs. 



-16 



Wiiitlirnpj MaRon and Rerrl^n, was rejected — 
Yea,-, II: i\a\s, 2G— as follows: 

lcu5 — Messrs. (,'hasf, Dnisof MiiS'S, Davton, 
Dodi'e (if Wis , Greene, I'lielps, Siiiilli, Upliaiil, 
Wair-!', VViilker and Wiiiiliro(j. 

A'(i/,s — Ue'srs Alclii^oii, IJadgrer, Barinvell. 
Bell, Ui'iiton, Uerrien, liiillfT, Cass, Davis of 
Miss., DawFiiii, UodjTH of ioiva. Downs, tlous- 
t»n. King, Manjiuiii, Musoii, Norton, Prat'.Kusk, 
Sirlia.stiaii, Shiklus, Soule, Sturgeon, Tiirney, 
L'ndtTwood and Vulee. 

NoU. (7). Another case which might be cited 
is the case of a free colored cii.zeu, sold iiilo sla- 
very Under the provisions of llie law of South 
Carolina, set forth in Note, (I), a law w'ich is 
a gro.-,s vi.dation of the ConstituiioQ of the United 
Stales. 

Sa|i|io«r a (ret colored riiizen of Massachu- 
setts should, under that law, be sold ax a slave 
in t>outh C'arolina, and slionld afterivards make 
his escape into tills Slate, and should be arrested 
under this Fugitive thive law, could li-.- go be- 
hind I he record otl'ered by the person ciainiing 
hiin (or the purpose of proving the aliove facts. — 
'I'ha'. record is in conformity with the laws of 
Soulli Carolina, and by that record the fact ol 
his .-lavery and escape, are conclusively esiab- 
lished. \Vh"re then is the alleged sl-ive to get 
the opportunity of showing that he h a Jycc c iizcn. 
illegallv and uuconstitulionally sold inio slavery? 
Not before ihe commissioner, for ihecommissiou- 
er is not allowed I > go behind the record. Not 
in the .Stale of South Carolina, where the alleged 
service is claimed to be due, for it is on the un- 
cons;iulional laws of tiiat slate, that the c'aiin 
to snch alleged slav} is bised, and these laws ■ e- 
iiy him the right of hal)eas corpus, to test the 
question of the consiitulionality, and punish, 
with nue and imprisonment, any person who 
thai! seek to test it in any other manner. 

The effect, therefore, ol the necessary operation 
of ihe Fugitive Slave law v.'ould, in fuch a case 
as this, be to deprive n frte cilizcn, ii.egally de- 
prived of his liberty, of any opportunity of estali- 
lishiiig it, and that the odious and unconstitution- 
al laws of South C\irnlina and other iSoulhern 
Slates, would not only be secured from all ques- 
tion, but would be rendered rntirely eflectual b\ 
the provisions of this new law, end free citizens 
of the North not only be sold into slavery at the 
south, but when ihey escaped from bondaije and 
reL'ained their homes and rights of freedom and 
cilizenship, be delivered b;.ck again to be sold as 
chattels by Eouihern slaveholders. Jf northern 
freemen can submit to such a law as this, the 
old Aiiglo Saxon blood must have ceased to 
course through their veins! 

Autc. (b). A 1 irge |iorlion of Mr. Dougl is' 
speech was devoted lo an attack upon the 
C'oiiiinoii Council of Chicago. That body liad, 
Bt their regular meeting a f. w cveningj previ- 
ous, passed a series of jesoliitions coudemu^ng 
the Fugitive Slave Law, as unconstitulional, un- 
juvt and oppressive, and expressing their detcr- 
miuation not lo lend their aid or countenance to 
the carrying out of that law, and instructing the 
police otlicers, appointed by them, ihatlhej need 



not centider it any part of their ofKcial duty to 
enforce s-<id law. The resolHlinns also con- 
demned, in strong laugoaje, tho'-e Senators and 
Kepresenlatives from the free slates who voted 
lor this law, and th"se who purposely avoided 
voting The resolutions were evidenilv hastily 
written, and so far as their pi.raseologv is con- 
cerned, are, w slu'uld think, susceptible of im- 
Crovenicnt. That ho»vever, is a quesiiua of 
taste. 

Mr Douolas assumed that the re.solutions 
were poiiiteddirecily at himself and Gen. Shields, 
and intended as a personal attack upon them. 
(alliiout;h their language is of tlie most broad and 
comprehensive character, and includes aZ^ Sen- 
ators from all Free Stales, who are justly subject 
to their imputaiions — and none who aie not — ) 
and gave the Common Cou:jcil a severe attack, 
on acc'unt of iheir adoption. 

His charge against the members of the Coun- 
cil WHS that while they had, each of lljem, taken an 
oaih lo su()pi.rt the Constitution of the United 
Slates, they had by their resolutions e.xpressed 
their determination lo violate that oath, and had 
violated il by instructing their agents, the police 
otTicers of the ciiv, not to enforce the law, and 
had at the same time denounced him because he, 
a Senator ol the United State'-, who had also ta- 
ken the same oath of allegiance tolhi* Consti- 
tution, had felt it to be his duty, undei his oath, 
to vote for the bill in (|uestiou. Most of the dil'- 
ferent changes which he rung, in the course of 
his caustic remarks upon the Common Coun- 
cil, had this charije for their foundation 

Now Ihe Supreme Court of the United States 
expressly dcciile I in the case of Prigg rs Com- 
monwealth of Petjusylvania, (as Ihe Senator 
himself admitted) that Congress cou'd not con- 
stitutionally impose on ^'tate officers, any of the 
duties necessary for carrying oul the piovi>-ion in 
the Constitution respecting Fugitive Slaves, and 
that such officers were, therefore, under uo obli- 
ga!i 'U to perlorm such dnt'es. 

JN'ow, we suppose, neither the Common Coun- 
cil, nor the Senator, noranv other public oiiicers, 
in the honest disdiarge of their otiicial duties, 
are justly cliargeable with intentional violation of 
their allegiance to the Constitution. It is to be 
presumed, of course, that iheir errors, if any, are 
errors of judgment. 

But, il certainly would not seem lo be becom- 
ing in tile Senator lo bring this charge against 
the Cotnmon Council; for if either the Common 
Council or the Senator are justly liable to the im- 
putation of disloyally to the Constitution — which 
IS it, the Commcu Council who have simply de- 
clared their intention not to enforce, and instruc- 
ted their olficers not to enforce a law, which by 
Ihe decision of the Supreme Cuurl of the United 
Slates, neither they nor their officers are under 
any constitutional obligation to enforce, even if 
the law itself is constitutional, or the Senator 
who would have voted for a law, which, if Ihe 
positions which we have assumed are correct, is 
in violation of some oft he most preciousand sacred 
principles of that very couslitu'iou which be has 
sworn to support? 



54 t 






















• "*-0^ 



o^ * . . * . '^ * • M • . ^^ ^ * • • » a9 

..** -I^m %^^ .•^\ %/ .'^ 


















0^ ,l»^«„ <?> 










^* 



*''%. 













'bv*' 










• •• 



;* A-?-' 



r^^.. 







7 • y\. ^ 



